Archive | Uncategorized RSS feed for this section

New ordinance, new salaries – same old problems – how do we get Chico PD to do their job?

3 Aug
When I went to the Airport Commission meeting last week I noticed somebody had taken up residence outside the front door of City Hall.

When I went to the Airport Commission meeting last week I noticed somebody had taken up residence outside the front door of City Hall.

Anybody who frequents Downtown, Midtown, and Lower Bidwell Park has noticed more homeless, or “street” people than ever. They have firm encampments at City Hall, City Plaza, the Vallombrosa post office annex, and throughout Bidwell Park. They mill up and down Mangrove and Vallombrosa Avenues around the Safeway shopping center.   As you get away from the city center and the park,  you see them alone or in pairs, moving along the main corridors of town, congregating wherever they can get cash for recyclables, or be out of the sight of passing cops, like the parking lot behind Raley’s on East Avenue.

The problem being, most of us have a hard time separating the truly needy from the hardpan criminals. Having observed the little mob that congregates at the recycling facility behind East Avenue Raleys, I was shocked to hear a report that a couple of them had got in a fight in broad daylight and one man had produced some sort of blade and stabbed the other.  That got my attention – I’ve parked my car on that side of the store since I had toddlers in hand.  

We see them regularly in our old midtown neighborhood now, they seem to be following the freeway across town. Our immediate neighbors, including a large church, noticed a brief upswing in crime, with some cars broken into and reports of bicycles stolen from garages. A car was broken into across the street from our house, again in broad daylight.  One afternoon not long after that, my husband and I encountered a woman out in front of our house who had just caught a couple of men in her garage with their hands on her son’s bike. She had chased them out and then got into her car to see which direction they’d headed. She said they had one bike of their own, and both jumped on it fleeing her garage. She was unable to follow them.  

This is a pattern I recognize all over town, don’t you?  Watch the local news – people have caught daytime break-ins on their security cameras. Full faces are shown. No arrests have been made that I’ve heard of, not since they got  the kid who was breaking into schools months ago. I haven’t heard of anybody getting their stolen property back either. 

The authorities have always acted as though a car break-in is the victim’s fault, especially in the park. Sometimes valuables have been left in plain sight, sometimes cars are smashed and rifled and nothing noticeable is taken. It’s as though you are stupid to leave your car unattended anywhere, including your own driveway. 

I’ve been shopping for mosquito netting – the other day I saw a screen that is specially made for your big garage door, with zipper openings big enough to get your car in and out. Great idea – airing your garage will cool down your house. But who would leave their garage open and untended around here?

 Did you know, local policeman Peter Durfee is the president not only of the Chico Police Officers’ Association (which is also a political PAC) but also the Chico Realtors Association? Durfee is a realtor? Wow, where does he find the time?  

Durfee is the officer who occasionally gets sick of the criticism of Chico PD and goes on a tear Downtown harassing street people. Not that I mind – he’s supposed to harass people for breaking the law. Anytime he’s felt like it, he’s managed to find about a violation every six feet – the sit and lie ordinance the cops screamed for is very specific. I see violations every time I go out. 

The picture above I took last week at City Hall at about 6:30 pm Wednesday.  There’s almost always a bed  laying in this spot. It still lay there when we exited the Airport Commission meeting, so my husband  snapped a picture of it. As we were leaving the little portico, a bedraggled man came round to see what we were doing. He smiled his drunken smile and greeted us with a tinge of fear – were we going to give him a bad time?   No, that’s not our job. At least one cop and more than a half dozen staffers, including city manager Mark Orme, had passed that bedding on their way into the chamber. He had been smoking in the non-smoking area when we arrived, and was still smoking when we came out. 

I get such a kick out of City Council, I’d really like to return the favor sometime, right in the seat of Mark Sorensen’s pants. They wasted hours of $taff time and passed that stupid sit and lie ordinance despite the fact they’d passed a similar ordinance years before that wasn’t being enforced. Now we see the same with sit and lie. Council also gave the cops very generous raises in exchange for paying three percent more of their pension – 12 percent. Out of salaries in excess of $100,000, they pay 12 percent of  pensions comprising 90 percent of  their highest year’s salary, available at age 50.

I predict Durfee will retire at 50, and then I predict he will make a run for city council. I predict he will be our mayor someday.

Just about the time our town is poised to go straight  down the shitter. Good luck Pete! 

 

 

Tags: , ,

Thanks to councilman Randall Stone for taking city clerk Debbie Presson to task over her refusal to post the campaign reports

29 Jul

A year or so ago I got into an ugly bitch fight with Chico City Clerk Debbie Presson over the posting of the campaign contribution reports on the website. For starters she was letting the cops go months beyond the report deadline with their PAC filing, letting them get off without paying the per-day fine. I quit when I felt she was trying to set me up for some sort of harassment suit. I also got e-mails from Stephanie Taber and Sean Morgan telling me I needed to “back off” of Presson. I started to feel like I might have the makings of a suit myself, but I’m not that kind of person.

Now it looks like Presson has taken everything off the website and requires people to physically present themselves in her office at her convenience to view the physical records. That’s view – if you want copies you will pay per page. 

Council member Randall Stone has taken up this issue with a Facebook posting here:

https://www.facebook.com/ElectStone/posts/732600713534996?comment_id=733024570159277&offset=0&total_comments=22&notif_t=feed_comment

I’m going to go on a little rant here. 

Debbie Presson is not fit for public office. She uses her position, in which she is supposed to protect the voters, to protect herself and her coworkers. Instead of working in the voter’s best interests, she furthers the best interests of herself and her friends. She uses her position to cover corruption, and that’s corrupt. 

Furthermore, I’ll say, the city charter needs to be changed so that the city clerk is elected like the county clerk is elected. Things might be different if her $135,000 salary, plus health benefits and pension, were on the line every four years.  I notice county clerk Candace Grubbs’ office is a lot more responsive. Grubbs also has plenty of help – Presson cut her staff and took a larger salary, but has the nerve to tell us she’s shorthanded! 

I see Stone has got a discussion going on this issue – at last, some sunshine in the sewer that is Downtown  Chico.

 

 

Tags: , ,

Attorney General Kamala Harris is investigating former CPUC president Michael Peevey – so far CPUC has spent $5 million (of our money!) on attorneys

28 Jul

According to the Sacramento Bee, “Attorney General Kamala Harris’ office is investigating former President Michael Peevey, and perhaps other current and former commission employees, and the CPUC is paying an outside law firm, Sheppard Mullin, to represent it.”

The Bee also says “The commission entered into the contract [with Sheppard Mullin] in November 2014, claiming it was for $49,000 [as stated in the above linked story]; the contract since has ballooned to $5 million-plus.”

Former CPUC president Michael Peevey, who stepped down amid a scandal involving his inappropriate relationship with PG&E, will pay his own attorneys – I’m sure he has plenty of dough! “…internal PG&E emails show Peevey sought a $1 million PG&E donation to combat a ballot measure in 2010, while the commission considered issues related to PG&E, including the 2010 gas line explosion that killed 38 people in San Bruno.

Southern California Edison disclosed that Peevey asked Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric to donate $25 million to fund a center at UCLA, as the commission was deciding how to apportion the $4.8 billion in costs of shutting the San Onofre nuclear power plant.”

These people are so shameless.

The Bee asks, “But why does a public agency with nothing to hide need a team of criminal defense lawyers to represent it against another public agency that is seeking to determine whether there has been wrongdoing? What sort of precedent does this set?”

This precedent will become the way it is as long as the public fails to act.

Staff pushing council to forgive $205,539 Nature Center loan – tonight, in a special meeting with 24 hours notice

22 Jul

I received the original agenda for tonight’s meeting on Monday, then  an amended agenda containing this report yesterday. This subject was originally brought up June 2, but somebody  raised a Brown Act issue. I bet! 

I went ahead and posted the whole report, sorry for the hasty cut and paste job.

The Nature Center runs a for profit day care center, and they haven’t been showing their books. When I asked for their finance reports at a meeting, Mark Sorensen told me, “that’s enough Juanita!”  

Why isn’t the center being offered to a group that can manage  it properly? Why is this group so in the red? $250,000 in expenses for running kid’s camps? Why won’t they provide all their financial information, salaries, etc? 

http://www.guidestar.org/organizations/68-0341188/chico-creek-nature-center.aspx

Here’s the link to the whole agenda:

http://chico-ca.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=2&event_id=221

REPORT IN BRIEF: The City Council will consider several options related to a loan provided to the Chico Creek Nature Center that is currently in default. Options include forgiving the loan to deferring or calling the loan. At its May 20, 2014 meeting, Council authorized staff to prepare Amendment No. 4 to the agreement that would: (1) reset the accumulated interest and penalties owed for the period beginning July 15, 2009, through April 15, 2014, to zero ($0) so that only the current principal balance of $181,026.95 is owed; (2) adjust the interest rate from 1.80 percent per annum to 3.42 percent per annum from July 15, 2014 forward; and (3) establish interest only payments for one year beginning with the payment due July 15, 2014. Staff prepared Amendment No. 4, however, the CCNC did not agree with these terms and, as of the date of this staff report, has not signed the Amendment resulting in the loan falling into a default status.

RECOMMENDATION That the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute an amendment to the “Restated Loan Agreement for the Construction of New Exhibit and Classroom Facility, Chico Creek Nature Center, Inc.” to either: Option 1 – Loan Forgiveness – Forgive the Chico Creek Nature Center of its loan obligation. Option 2 – Loan Foraiveness with conditions – Forgive the Chico Creek Nature Center of its loan obligation with conditions as specified by the City Manager. Defer loan payments for a period not exceeding August 1, 2015 until successful negotiations on agreements conclude. If agreement is not reached, proceed with Option 4. Option 3 – Defer Loan Obligations – Defer all payment of interest until July 1, 2016. Option 4 – No Action – City Council takes no action and City Administration works with City Attorney’s Office to proceed with available remedies specified through the agreements with the Chico Creek Nature Center. FISCAL IMPACT: The “Restated Loan Agreement for the Construction of New Exhibit and Classroom Facility Chico Creek Nature Center, Inc.” establishes quarterly loan payments, in the amount of $3,397.43, due on the 15th of January, April, July, and October. The original loan amount was $185,000 and the total annual loan payment is $13,589.72. Loan payments not received within 15 days of the due date are to bear a penalty of additional interest at a rate of one-half percent (0.5%) per month which has been waived for the majority of the deferred payments. Because the loan was made from a development impact fund, the City Attorney’s Office advises that if the loan obligation were to be forgiven, the General Fund would be required to reimburse Fund 347 – Zone I Neighborhood Parks for the current principal balance plus accumulated interest, a total of approximately $205,539.71.If the two year deferral request is granted without penalty, and the interest rate is adjusted to 3.42 percent per annum, then the deferred payments will be added to the end of the amortization schedule and interest will continue to accrue. If the loan’s accumulated interest and penalties are reset to $0 and an adjusted interest rate of 3.42 percent per annum is applied to the current principal balance of $181,026.95, then the Nature Center’s payments would be approximately $1,547.78 per quarter ($6,191.12 peryear).The Nature Center would be required to request in writing by April 1 st of each year to continue interest only payments or to advise that it can begin payments of both principal plus interest. The City may periodically review and adjust the interest rate in accordance with the City’s actual rate of return on investment. An interest only payment would provide a small revenue stream to the City until such time as the Nature Center can resume full loan payments.

BACKGROUND: The Chico Creek Nature Center (CCNC) leases property, including two City owned buildings, in Bidwell Park along East Eighth Street between Cedar Grove Picnic Area and the Deer Pen. As consideration for such use, and in lieu of the payment of rent, the CCNC operates a nature museum and conducts educational classes and programs on nature and the environment for the benefit of the public. The lease was executed July 1, 1996, amended on July 21, 2005, and terminates December 31, 2027. One of the City owned buildings, the administration building, was destroyed by an arson fire in April 1998. By City Council motion on November 10,2005, the City Council approved a request from the CCNC for a loan in the amount of $185,000, bearing an interest rate of 5.24 percent per annum, to cover the balance of increased construction costs for the new exhibit and classroom facilities within the new building that were not covered by grant funds, insurance proceeds, or existing donations. It was the intention of the CCNC to conduct fundraising activities to generate funds to make the loan payments and, in the event fund raising activities failed to generate sufficient funds, the CCNC had agreed to use interest generated from its Paradise Community Foundation endowment as security for the loan to make the loan payments. Upon completion of construction, the first loan payment was made July 15, 2008. After making four quarterly payments, the CCNC requested a deferral of loan payments for three years due to unanticipated costs associated with the completion of the new facility which required the Nature Center to divert operating funds to capital expenses and to use the interest generated from its Paradise Community Foundation endowment for operating expenses, making the endowment funds that had been identified as security for the loan unavailable. The Finance Committee recommended deferral of the loan payments that were due July 15, 2009, through April 15, 2010, with associated penalties, and the deferral of the loan payments due July 15, 2010, through April 15, 2011, without penalty, but recommended that deferral of the third year of payments be considered following staff analysis of a business plan to be submitted by the CCNC. Subsequently Council authorized the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 1 to the agreement subject to these conditions. The Finance Committee recommended the third year of deferred loan payments (July 15, 2011, through April 15, 2012), without penalty, based on staff review of the CCNC’s business plan which showed they were making progress toward financial stability and could potentially be in a position to resume quarterly loan payments in fiscal year 2012-13. Council approved the recommendation at which time Councilmember Holcombe suggested staff review the loan’s interest rate relative to the City’s actual rate of return on investment and that Council consider a future discussion regarding forgiveness of the loan. Council authorized the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 2 to the agreement subject to these conditions. In 2012 the Finance Committee considered the CCNC’s request for an additional three years of deferred loan payments (July 15, 2012 through April 15, 2015). In addition, as requested by Councilmember Holcombe, staff reviewed the City’s actual rate of return on investment and recommended that the interest rate be adjusted from 5.24 percent per annum to 1.80 percent per annum to more accurately reflect the City’s actual rate of return on investment The Finance Committee recommended to Council that only a two year deferral be granted, through April 15, 2014, and that the interest rate be adjusted to 1.80 percent per annum retroactive to the payment due July 15, 2009. Council authorized the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 3 to the agreement subject to these conditions.By letter dated April 2, 2014, the CCNC requested an additional two year deferral of loan payments, from July 15, 2014 through April 15, 2016. When the Finance Committee considered this request Committee Member Stone was in favor of forgiving the loan, Committee Member Sorensen was not in favor of forgiving the loan, and Committee Member Gruendl was absent. The request was forwarded to the City Council without a Committee recommendation. At its May 20, 2014 meeting, Council authorized staff to prepare Amendment No. 4 to the agreement that would: (1) reset the accumulated interest and penalties owed for the period beginning July 15,2009, through April 15, 2014, to zero ($0) so that only the current principal balance of $181,026.95 was owed; (2) adjust the interest rate from 1.80 percent per annum to 3.42 percent per annum from July 15, 2014 forward; and (3) establish interest only payments for one year beginning with the payment due July 15, 2014. Staff prepared Amendment No. 4; however, the CCNC did not agree with these terms and, as of the date of this staff report, has not signed the Amendment. DISCUSSION: Since the City and the Chico Creek Nature Center (CCNC) have not been able to execute a 4’h amendment to modify the loan agreement as directed by Council, the CCNC is in default of the original loan agreement. Based on the loan’s history and the actions taken over the past years, there is high likelihood that the CCNC will not be able to ever repay the loan. The loan proceeds went into improving a building that is and will remain City property. At this point, the City must take a final action on whether to call the loan or forgive it. In March 2015, to minimize the impact on the City, the City Council approved the use of one-time, General Fund, carry over funds from 2013-14 to move the debt obligation from Fund 347 – Zone I Neighborhood Parks Fund to the General Fund. This still results in an accounts receivable; however, if the City forgives the loan, the City would not have to identify funds to cover the loan obligation in the neighborhood parks fund. City staff are requesting the City Council consider four options on resolving the loan. Request from CCNC

The CCNC indicates that the City’s decision to reduce community based organization funding in 2014-15 has created significant financial difficulties for the CCNC and in October 2014, the CCNC provided a written request to the City to reconsider the relationship between the City and the CCNC. The letter requested the City consider four options or an alternative if none of the four options were acceptable. The requested options include that the City: 1) assume the CCNC loan; 2) provide funding to CCNC for visitor services and the subsidizing of programs for local families; 3) provide the CCNC a place at the table when discussing Transient Occupancy Tax decisions; or 4) become a significant funder of the CCNC Alternative: the CCNC wants the City to fund the Bidwell Park visitor information services and the CCNC will then begin paying off the loan. The nature of the request was more expansive than the City Council considered during the May 2014 meeting. Further, funds the City would provide to CCNC under option 2 would appear to be used to pay the loan which is essentially the City paying itself. As a result, this CCNC options do not appear to be viable option for the City. City Proposed Options City staff prepared several options for the City Council’s consideration to either resolve the loan, continue the past practice of deferring the loan, or proceed with enforcement of the agreement default provisions. These options and considerations are provided below.

Option 1 – Loan Forgiveness – Forgive the Chico Creek Nature Center of its loan obligation. City staff presented this option in May 2014. The loan was used to benefit City owned property, and an argument could be made that the City directly benefited by the expenditure of loan funds to improve the area leased by the CCNC. However, the recitals to the loan agreement indicate that the loan agreement was to cover the increased construction costs for the new exhibit and classroom facility at the CCNC, items that may not have been constructed but for the CCNC’s intended use. The current situation involves the CCNC not being able to make payments for over five years. Consequently, there is increasing likelihood that our external auditors will view the loan obligation as bad debt. The City Council’s action in May 2015 to move the debt from Fund 347 – Zone I Neighborhood Parks to the General Fund as an account receivable provided a buffer to the City’s operations as well as address the issues auditors may have had with bad debt. If the City had liquidated the loan prior to taking this action, the City would have had to identify sufficient funds to cover the debt. To the extent that it happens during a fiscal year, finding additional resources may impact operations. Finally, eliminating the loan would also eliminate another complicated relationship that is unique among other lease agreements with non-profit entities.

Option 2 – Loan Forqiveness with conditions – Forgive the Chico Creek Nature Center of its loan obligation with conditions as specified by the City Manager. Defer loan payments for a period not exceeding August 1, 2015 until successful negotiations on agreements conclude. If agreement is not reached, proceed with Option 4. Same explanation as provided in Option 1. The City has undertaken a review of City leases in order to establish a citywide policy governing leases and creating more consistency from one lease to another. Currently, the CCNC has a lease which expires in 2027. The City wishes to keep leases to no more than 2-3 years with voluntary extensions to 5 years until the City engages in a more thorough vetting of leases going over 5 years. Additionally, the City needs to strengthen records retention and audit provisions, establish more explicit performance standards, and introduce more comprehensive reporting requirements to leases. The loan situation with the CCNC offers a win-win solution where the City can forgive the loan while modifying its lease agreements to obtain changes meant to protect the City’s assets and the viability of the organizations leasing the assets. This option would provide the CCNC and City time to revise the lease agreement while retaining the ability to enforce loan provisions in the default situation.

Option 3 – Defer Loan Obligations – Defer all payment of interest until July 1, 2016. This options continues the past practice of delaying the obligation. If this option is selected, the City would evaluate the CCNC’s ability to operate as a going concern in order to better advise the City Council in addressing the loan in 2016 Option 4 – No Action – City Council takes no action and City Administration works with City Attorney’s Office to proceed with available remedies specified through the agreements with the Chico Creek Nature Center. The agreements with CCNC include default provisions that may result in the City taking legal action on the loan note. Ultimately, this option would negatively impact the CCNC and result in the City buildings remaining vacant for the foreseeable future. Currently, the CCNC pays utilities and conducts basic maintenance to sustain the status quo of the facilities. The City would become responsible for these costs should the CCNC lose possession of the buildings.

CONCLUSION: The options provided in this staff report should address the long standing deficiency in the Chico Creek Nature Center’s (CCNC) performance on its loan and lease agreements. Actions taken previously buffer the City from an unforeseen financial impact from having to address the loan against the Neighborhood Parks Fund.Opportunity exists for the City to revise the CCNC agreements to better meet the City’s goals related to its property leases while also providing an opportunity for the CCNC to achieve its goal of being a viable organization.

CARD reschedules final budget meeting – July 30, Lakeside Pavilion, 3pm

21 Jul

I was unable to make the CARD board meeting last week. I missed the opportunity to tell them what I think about the budget. According to the subsequent article in the Enterprise Record, only one member of the public showed up with a comment – an Aqua Jets parent, who wanted to say he was happy to see the board going forward with plans to build a fancy new aquatic center. 

It frustrates me that nobody pays attention to this board. I’ll admit, sometimes I get a bad attitude because I think nobody else cares.  I could have put a muster on it and made that meeting last week, but I was tired, just like the rest of you, after a long day, and I didn’t feel like it. 

I’ll admit, I haven’t felt like it a lot lately.  It’s not like they roll out the red carpet to the public. I’ve been trying to get into the Aquatic Center Advisory Committee meetings for a couple of years now. I finally got into a meeting a couple of months ago, only to find the committee was disjointed and many members were not up to speed. Turns out, most of the real discussion and decision making has been going on in ad-hoc committees of former Chico City manager Tom Lando, former CARD manager and board member Jerry Hughes, and members of Chico city staff, the police department, and other public officials.  There have been special meetings called with 24 hours notice. When I’ve tried to get reports of these meetings I’ve been handed around from one staffer to another. I asked to be on the notice list for these meetings.  Interim manager Steve Visconti told me I’d be contacted by incoming manager Ann Willman, who left her post at Oroville Recreation District after only a year or so to take the manager’s position in Chico. He told me I’d get a report of that special “inter government” meeting, but I’m still waiting. Willman was supposed to have started her job July 6.

I’m guessing these meetings are about a sales tax increase initiative, as well as city funding for the aquatic center.

I predicted cost overruns on that center – Lando is already announcing they will need more than twice the budgeted amount – about $75,000 – just for a feasibility study. He wants to get that out of the city parks fund. 

The good news is, they have postponed their final budget meeting, which was to be held in two days, to July 30. I hope more members of the public will show up to address this fiscal irresponsibility. It’s nuts, and we need people to turn out in droves to say so. That’s Thursday, July 30, at 3pm, Lakeside Pavilion, Chico. 

 

Airport Commission scheduled to meet July 28 – Chico Chamber demanding commercial air service, wants city to pay $40 – 60,000 for a survey

17 Jul

thanks Jim for reminding me – the airport report, released in March, is a must-read.

http://www.chico.ca.us/airport/documents/AirlineFeasibiltyCommitteeReport3-3-15.pdf

Read it and ask yourself why we need to spend money on another survey. Katie Simmons of Chico Chamber wants a survey “of who uses the airport and where they fly”, and then she wants the city to guarantee the airline over $3 million in revenues, meaning, if they don’t sell tickets, the taxpayers pay.  For roughly 60 people who fly regularly. Many of the businesses in the survey suggested they’d be as happy to use a ground shuttle to Sacramento Airport if shuttle tickets were priced more reasonably. The shuttle currently charges $60, one way.  Respondents said they’d be willing to pay $35. Most respondents expressed total disinterest in paying for any kind of study. Simmons is demanding the taxpayers pay for it.

Read it yourself. There’s an airport commission meeting scheduled  for July 28. 

Tags: , ,

Is recycling about saving the planet? Or paying bureaucrats’ salaries, benefits and pensions?

13 Jul

I like to look at Anthony Watts’ blog, “Watts Up With That?” for several reasons. First, it’s just enough over my head to make me reach a little. Well, sometimes it’s a lot over my head, but Watt’s keeps it witty and cheerful anyway. Second, he gets comments from all over the world, it’s really interesting to read. Third, I agree with Watts – “Global Warming” has turned into the biggest mass hysteria since “War of the Worlds”. 

There’s a lot of just plain news on WUWT – here’s a story about the California Recyling Fund that I find very sad.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/11/californian-recycling-fraud-case/

Yes, I believe this is a problem, but, the real killer has been legislative raids on the fund itself – this article from 2009 describes how the CRV fund  “had hummed along successfully for two decades until state officials left it nearly bankrupt after taking $451 million out to help balance the budget.”

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/30/local/la-me-recycling30-2009nov30

Balance the budget? At that time we didn’t know that meant, paying down the enormous unfunded pension liability – a.k.a. The Pension Bomb. The Pension Bomb has been ticking since Gray Davis agreed to allow the retirement systems to fund pensions with the stock market instead of making employees pay for their own benefits. By 2009 the fund had crashed a few times with the market and been bailed out to the tune of hundreds of millions by the taxpayers. Rather than bring the public in on the problem, the legislature started raiding various funds to pay down the pension deficit. They just about tanked the CRV fund, even as beverage sales went up. 

The recycling companies, small Mom and Pop firms and businesses like the Work Training Center started to rattle their chains – they weren’t getting reimbursed at the rates they were paying their customers, and sometimes they weren’t getting any money at all. One small company up near Los Molinos was having trouble staying in business, as were many others. 

I don’t think the fraud problem is too hard to figure out – pending legislation will make it illegal for one person to redeem more than a certain amount of recyclables – no more semi trucks pulling in with thousand of dollars worth of recyclables trucked in from Mexico or another state. But, it includes all kinds of hang-ups for Mom and Pop operations, requiring software reporting programs that will most likely require an extra full-time employee to run. For example, if you get more than $100 from the Work Training Center, or any center, you have to present your identification with an address. Large loads (I’m sorry I don’t know poundage) require a hauler’s license. The days of some old  retired couple just weighing the goods and doling out the cash are over.

According to this article from April, these changes have not been that good  for redemption rate (the rate at which people are returning the containers).

http://resource-recycling.com/node/5884?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=READ%20MORE%3E%3E&utm_campaign=PRU%2004-08-15

But that’s good for the state, because they need the CRV money to pay salaries, benefits and pensions. “The program changes have resulted in a drop in the redemption rate. At the same time, more consumers are buying drinks, resulting in a revenue boost, Collins noted. The redemption rate for fiscal year 2014-15 is projected to be 81 percent, down from 85 percent in calendar year 2013. The ‘break-even’ rate, or the redemption rate at which there are enough unredeemed containers to pay the fund’s expenses, is projected to be 79 percent. That leaves a gap of only 2 percentage points for fiscal year 2014-15, down from a 10-percentage-point gap in 2013.”

Do you get that? They’re counting on 79 percent of us not recycling so they can pay their salaries and pensions!  Is that outrageous enough for you? The only reason they care about “recycling fraud” is because it takes money out of the state’s pocket. They don’t care if 79 percent of purchased recyclable containers go straight to the landfill. 

This is the same kind of fund raiding that goes on Downtown. They’ve raided the development fund, the sewer fund, and the airport fund right into the red to pay off the pension deficit. The conservatives that are currently in charge blame it on the liberals who just got tossed over – but what are they doing about it? They’ve deferred developer fees, they’ve given fat raises to management and public safety, and they’ve moved funds around to cover their checks. They can’t fix the streets, they can’ fix the park, they are talking about selling at least a portion of Bidwell Ranch to developers. 

Fund Raiders of the Lost Paradise.

Tags: ,

Why are we subsidizing for-profit developers by deferring developer fees?

11 Jul

I got a comment on an old blog recently. It was a blog about the road work on Hwy 32 east of the freeway, and how the developers aren’t paying for work they necessitated with all those new houses and apartments out there.

https://chicotaxpayers.com/2013/08/22/hwy-32-widening-will-caltrans-carry-out-their-threat-to-sue-us-because-we-didnt-collect-developer-fees/

There are no pedestrian or bicycle improvements out there for all those “live units” they’ve built, and they’re continuing to build without adding any. They’re putting people out in the sticks who don’t have cars, without providing safety improvements required for pedestrians and bikes.

From Py:  What about the new ‘low income’ 141 apt. Complex at the corner of 20th & Bruce road’? State law states that a car must give a bicyclist at least 3feet of ‘leeway'(or words to that effect)! What a joke!!

I use my bike to get around town, but I drive when I have to leave the city center, because the car drivers get more agitated the farther you get from Downtown. The cyclist will encounter car drivers who actually question the cyclist’s right to use roads. If there’s not a marked bike path, they act as though cyclists are not allowed. 

But, as a car driver, I get nervous around bike riders who seem to think now that they have a bike, it’s all about bikes! I find a lot of people who have driven all their lives, as soon as they get on a bike, they ride like they drove – remember the old Disney cartoon, Mr. Walker and Mr. Wheeler? Well, they should have made a bike version, the intelligent pedestrian fears bikes as much as cars. The answer is wide roads with adequate space for proper bike lanes and sidewalks, with adequate signage and signals. Why don’t the developments on the outskirts of town have the same amenities as central neighborhoods? Because the city didn’t require it of the developers who made millions out there. 

The city needs to require more of developers.  In that old blog, I posted a conversation I had with Mayor Mark Sorensen in which he told me none of the developer fees had been collected for the Hwy 32 work. Since that conversation, city council has actually deferred developer fees again, saying they want to encourage construction. More construction without proper infrastructure?  As we also discussed in that old blog, Cal Trans threatened to sue the city because they were permitting too much development without setting aside money for the necessitated road improvements.

Just as I feared from this new council, they are talking about developing at least part of Bidwell Ranch.  And this is what we can expect – if we want the bike trails and the other amenities, we will have to pay for them out of the tax pot. Meanwhile the existing streets around town will get worse and worse as we subsidize for-profit developers. 

Are you ready for another water rate increase? Cal Water Proposes to raise revenues by $95 million in 2017, another $23 million in 2018, and $23 million more in 2019 – where will YOU get that kind of money?

7 Jul
Thanks to Connie for this article from Market Wired
California Water Service Group 11 hours ago
 
SAN JOSE, CA–(Marketwired – Jul 6, 2015) – On July 3, 2015, California Water Service Group’s (NYSE: CWT) largest subsidiary, California Water Service Company (Cal Water), filed a General Rate Case requesting authorization from the California Public Utilities Commission (Commission) to increase rates to add revenues of $94.8 million in 2017, $23.0 million in 2018, and $22.6 million in 2019.

According to President and Chief Executive Officer Martin A. Kropelnicki, about 80% of the requested increase is attributable to capital improvements needed to improve water supply and upgrade infrastructure in the communities Cal Water serves.

“We need to continue to invest diligently in water supply sources, as well as the pipes, pumps, treatment plants, and other facilities that are needed to provide a safe, reliable water supply to our customers. We are proposing water system improvements totaling $693 million, which is the most significant driver of the requested increase,” he said.

The filing reflects Cal Water’s aggressive cost control measures, which include reduced benefits costs and freezing employee headcount for all positions except those required to make water supply and system improvements.

“Our team has worked hard to control our costs in all parts of our business, and this application shows that effort,” Kropelnicki said.

The filing begins an 18-month review process by the Commission, with new rates expected to become effective in early 2017. The Commission requires a General Rate Case filing every three years to ensure that rates reflect the actual costs of providing service, while allowing the Company a reasonable return on investment in water system infrastructure. The Commission has the authority to approve rate increases that are lower than requested, but not higher.

California Water Service Group is the parent company of California Water Service, Washington Water Service Company, New Mexico Water Service Company, Hawaii Water Service Company, Inc., CWS Utility Services, and HWS Utility Services. Together these companies provide regulated and non-regulated water service to approximately 2 million people in more than 100 California, Washington, New Mexico, and Hawaii communities. Group’s common stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol “CWT.” Additional information is available online at www.calwatergroup.com.

Tags:

Stephan Farris, you need to do your homework Sweetie

4 Jul
I wrote a letter to the Enterprise Record about the new budget. I’ve been going to meetings and reading documents for years now, I’ve watched the budget very closely, I’ve watched the agendas. Every year they throw out a budget, but it’s a joke – through “appropriations” they manage to raise spending millions over budget, all they have to do is file an “appropriation.” 

“Appropriate” means “take,” by the way.

City salaries rise and council won’t control it

The taxpayers must be asleep when city staff more than doubles the budget from $43 million to $109 million, giving themselves all generous salaries and paying the lion’s share of their own benefits out of the public till.

City staff has done very well for itself. Meanwhile, the park looks terrible, with liability issues such as rotting tree limbs, pot-holed roads and gopher-pitted trails. Our neighborhood streets are also a liability issue.

Our city staffers are making as much as five times the median income, but complain they can’t serve us. City Manager Mark Orme takes over $200,000 in salary, pays less than 10 percent of his own pension and benefits, but complains he needs an assistant. At that kind of salary, I’d expect Superman, but Orme complains he can’t do his job. That’s become a pattern of late — he justified his salary raise saying he had a big job to do, gutted staff to save the money to give himself that raise, but now complains he needs help.

And our “fiscal conservative council” — don’t make me laugh. They approved the budget and the salary increases, now they will ask us to raise the sales tax rate to pay for these outrageous salaries and pensions. They will promise us a stadium, a new swim center, smiling cops on every corner — but all we’ll get out of it are more overfed bluejays to screech and squawk for more money, more money, more money.

— Juanita Sumner, Chico

I hate writing to the ER because they allow Topix. Topix requires membership with Facebook or Twitter or another one of the social networks, to which I do not subscribe. I can’t stand Tweeters, I’m sorry, get a life. Sounds waaaay too much like Tweaker, anyway.  So, Topix users are able to say whatever they want about a letter, and I can’t respond. Here’s a comment that is just flatly insulting and uninformed.

Stephan Farris • a day ago

“You need to do your homework… The total budget approved for 2013/2014 was $110,519,079. The total budget approved for 2014/2015 was $120,449,882. The approved budget for 2015/2016 is $109,700,000 (rounded) which is a significant reduction from last year and small reduction from the prior year.”

Mr. Farris, you do your homework, Jackass. I think you actually know the truth, but you spread misinformation to further your bottom line, whatever that is. Wife a public worker? You might want to attend a few meetings, read a few documents Mr. Farris before you tell somebody else they don’t know what they’re talking about. 

And, of course, the old budgets have been taken down from the city website. Oh well – this is it folks, either you believe me or you don’t. Ask yourself – who’s been going to meetings all these years, and who’s just been jerking their wad on Topix? 

 

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →